My Hebrew professor at BYU is constantly sharing details with us about the
strong connection between the language and names of The Book of Mormon and
Hebrew. The root words, syntax, and other linguistic fingerprints of that book
make it clear the originators had a Hebrew background.

And by the
way, all the jokes about "It came to pass", that are constantly found,
especially in Nephi's writings, is an English translation of a very short word
found throughout the Old Testament that begins many verses. Most of them are
left out in translations but in the original Hebrew, this word floods the Old
Testament. Just one tiny example of many that I found interesting.

This article is very good. It points out the improbability of Joseph Smith
writing this book. I don't believe any man or woman could have written the Book
of Mormon in that space of time. Any legitimate scholar would have to agree the
book was written by man at all. Joseph Smith translated it by the power of God,
that is really the only explanation for the book.

The Book of Mormon is a book to be reckoned with. I recommend it to be
prayerfully read by everyone. I love this book and feel closer to my Savior
every time I open it. In addition to all of the things mentioned in this
article, I like how I get something new and rewarding from it every time I read
it, even though it might be my 35th or 36th reading of it. I love it.

I had a testimony of the book long before I heard words such as chiasmus. The
other things, such as contained in this article, only serve to fascinate and
intrigue me further. Elder Holland's General Conference address from October of
2010 is further testimony.

There will no doubt be many who will lend
their opinion to this page and argue and degrade and contend. I've learned to
let them. My testimony is not based on frustrated ramblings, or the murmurings
of those who have an axe to grind, but the peace I feel inside every time I lean
towards the Savior, which I do as much as I can.

When the evidence and science go against you, you
insist: "A spiritual testimony is the only basis for belief",

but when you can find some obscure "parallelism", you parade it
around with an in-your-face attitude, in defiance of your own claims about
spiritual testimony.

And then you vilify those of us who have taken
Moroni's challenge and found a different answer than "the right one".
You call us insincere, or too proud, or unworthy, or even "haters" and
"anti's".

In all sincerity, I humbly testify to you all, I
have sincerely, with real intent, studied the BOM and Mormonism for over 20
years, attending your meetings and participating as much as I am allowed, along
with my active LDS wife. But none of the promised "witnesses"
(spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social, or otherwise) have EVER been
forthcoming.

I have heard the arguments, studied with the BYU
professors, learned about chiasmus and parallelisms, and on and on, but the
arguments are always weak, spurious, and circular: you find only what you are
seeking (that is virtually a doctrinal axiom) and seek only what confirms
belief.

I don't like to emphasize historical and scholarly arguments for the Book of
Mormon. For many, this is whistling in the dark, and such arguments leave me
cold. I think that the REAL test of the book lies in its ability to change
lives.

Great article Mr. Petersen. Most if not all critics and hatemongers of the Book
of Mormon have not read it. And some don't even want to read it or it will
change their visceral animosity towards the LDS Church. As a convert, I have
come to love the Book of Mormon! Again, no one will have been able to
write/translate such a work without divine help.

Great article!! However, I take exception to the phrase "a semi-literate
young farmer." I consider Joseph Smith at the same intelligence level as
Newton, Einstein, Galileo, etc. Heavenly Father does not work the kind of work
that he performed with Joseph Smith just because we see Joseph as semi-literate.
Joseph lacked the formal training that you and I have endured, but he was not
in the least semi-literate.

I know the Book of Mormon to be true, not because of the improbability of Joseph
Smith writing it, but because, after study and prayer, the Holy Ghost confirmed
that testimony in my mind and in my heart.

I appreciate the
complexities that Dr. Peterson references. However, in the end, it is still
about exercising faith as one reads, ponders, and prays about the book.

Thanks to Dan Peterson for another great article, and to Deseret News for
printing it.

I still remember with perfect clarity the moment
someone first placed a Book of Mormon in my hands. He told me a quick, 3 or 4
sentence summary of the book's contents, then challenged me to read it and pray
about it.

Within days of starting to read the Book of Mormon, I gave
up partying, cut my hair, and began to get my life together. I knew it was true,
and that meant that I had to get myself on a totally different road from the one
I was on.

Decades later I look back at where I would have been, and
compare it to where I am now. I'm grounded, healthy, and happy, with a wonderful
wife (and 7 kids!), and a heart overflowing with gratitude for my Savior, Jesus
Christ, and for the loving guidance (and correction) of a Heavenly Father.

I have a lot to be thankful for, including for the Book of Mormon. It
not only changed my life, but it may well have saved it.

The original text of the Book of Mormon isn't quite as impressive as the current
edited version as far as consistency and complexity goes. The language is
extremely repetitive and themes, characters, and names are out of order. I
encourage everyone to read the earlier versions and compare them to the later
version. Still I think the Book of Mormon rivals similarly themed books of the
time such as View of the Hebrews.

To me the most valuable part of
the book is that it gives us a glimpse into the mind of 19th century America and
the ideas that concerned them such as secret societies, infant baptism, and
racism, as well as their guesses as to the origin of the Native Americans
through a Christian lens.

Dan is right on - if we are honest in our evaluation of this book, it could only
have come in the manner Joseph said it did.

As a young man growing up
in Indiana, my parents challenged me many times to read the Book of Mormon. I
never did - I lied and said I did, but I never read it.

That is until
I actually got in the MTC. An instructor there challenged me one day, saying,
"if you're going to go to France and share this book with people, shouldn't
you know whats in it?"

That night I opened the Book of Mormon
and read - I finished it in less than one week. I was absolutely astounded - it
was true! What my parents and church leaders had been telling me for years was
true. I remember feeling overcome with profound emotion and gratitude.

That experience absolutely changed my life.

An honest, sincere
and even an analytical review of this book proves it is another testament of
Christ.

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for years and in all my
rsearch I have found no error in this book - in fact, I'm more convinced now
than ever!

fww4867Literate and intelligent are not the same thing. The one thing that
his contemporaries on both the pro and anti side consistently said was that
before 1830 he was only semi-literate. Yes he could read some basic things but
was not well read and did not like to read. Again that does not mean that he was
not intelligent just that he was not well read and did not like to read.

EnolaHAve you actually sat down with an 1830 edition and the current
edition and looked at them side by side? A few years back I took my replica 1830
and the online edition and went word for word. Yes there were about 4000 word
changes however they are not as you suggest. the vast majority were simply
grammar For example the phrase "after that" used only by Nephi who
left Jerusalem and Moroni was changed to "after". There was one spot
were a name was changed when the City of Zarahemla was discovered and they had
Gold plates from the Jaredites they could not translate they are told King
Benjamin can translate and in latter editions Joseph changed it to King Mosiah.
However that Benjamin's name was used in fact makes sense. When the people left
he was king he stepped down after they had left something they would not have
known. So when they found the people of Zarahemla they would have still believed
Benjamin was king. That is the only real name change I came across.

May I offer another perspective? I took Hebrew at BYU ('70-71) with Ann Madsen,
before she rec'd her doctorate. Our professor did not share the excitement
about chiasmus, because he knew which passages were identical to the KJV.
Obviously comparing Isaiah's writings will provide a palate for Hebraic
comparisons. Spiritual feelings are in the eye of the beholder, right? I have
Muslim friends who wax teary-eyed while quoting entire Qu'ranic sections. Does
that lend crdeibility to its veracity for non-Muslims?

I loved the
BoM for 35 years and received many years of inspiration from the narratives.
But being inspired by a book does not add anything to its validity. Observe the
Qu'ran, the Jewish Tanach and Talmud, and the plethora of spiritual and New Age
writings that continue to inspire humanity... My LDS nephews read more Harry
Potter than any other book. My nieces are totally enamored by the Twilight
vampire series.

It is an issue of faith, regardless of historic
evidence. After a totally unexpected spiritual experience 25 years ago (last
May), I became infatuated with the Holy Bible, any valid translation. It is
what Jesus claimed, "Words of Life". Nothing has compared since.